Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Infectious Greed: Dishwashers, and How Google Eats Its Own Tail

<< < (2/3) > >>

mouser:
i wonder if this means there is room for a major search engine player that had a system similar to google's pageranking, but specifically spread negative scores based on sites actually selling products.. so a site selling products would spread it's negative energy to sites that link to it, etc.

this would penalize some good honest sites, so you wouldn't want it as your only search engine, but it might be useful when searching for reviews and things that are otherwise dominated by commercial entities trying to game the system.

the problem of course is that there is much more money in what google does -- putting ads on everything and raking in money from seo experts trying to game the system for profit.

40hz:
the problem of course is that there is much more money in what google does
-mouser (December 20, 2009, 01:43 PM)
--- End quote ---

And the story ended right there... ;)

JavaJones:
The other problem with a negative rating for sites that link to sales sites is most legitimate review sites use sales referrals to generate money to support their site. The idea itself is interesting though, as a possible component for an improved search engine.

- Oshyan

40hz:
i wonder if this means there is room for a major search engine player that had a system similar to google's pageranking, but specifically spread negative scores based on sites actually selling products.. so a site selling products would spread it's negative energy to sites that link to it, etc.

this would penalize some good honest sites...
-mouser (December 20, 2009, 01:43 PM)
--- End quote ---

Ooo! I just reread that and let it sink in.

Cool idea. Problem is it's rife with the potential for legal liability. Especially if it could be shown to have a negative impact on somebody's sales. (Annoying as bogus whoops! cancel that :mrgreen: some reviews may be, they're not illegal under current law.)

Even consumer advocacy groups have to be careful what they say and how they say it no matter how true it is. That's why they have a battery of editors and lawyers review everything twice before they publish. I'd hate to trust something that sensitive to an algorithm.

An attorney once told me there was a saying he learned in law school:

"Keep all your words soft, sweet, and wholesome - because you're about to eat them."


Probably not a bad thing to keep in mind. 8)

JavaJones:
Hmm, I wonder if you can be legally held liable for the work of an algorithm if no malicious, slanderous, or personal intent could be proven. In other words you code the algorithm without bias to site or author, but by clearly weeding out a class of content/links you see as less "relevant". It's just another search engine. It never targets anyone unduly - it's just part of its algorithm. A new site could arise that perfectly plays against your algorithm's coding, and gets essentially buried in the search results, but you didn't code it knowing of that site, so how is it discriminatory or illegal? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and some of the things people sue over these days drive me nuts (what am I saying "some" - MOST). But it seems reasonably defensible...

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page